Hello, and welcome to the Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. Fourth Quarter 2025 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I will now turn the conference over to Mr. Brian Chin, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Thank you, operator, and good morning, everyone. Thank you for joining us for our fourth quarter and full year 2025 earnings conference call. Joining me on the call today will be Rod West, Chief Executive Officer; and Rob Stefani, Chief Financial Officer, who will share prepared remarks. Other members of the management team are also available to answer your questions during the Q&A portion of the call today. To accompany today's earnings call, we have a supplemental webcast presentation available on our website, algonquinpower.com. Our financial statements and management discussion and analysis are also available on the website as well as on SEDAR+ and EDGAR. We would like to remind you that our discussion during the call will include certain forward-looking information and non-GAAP measures. Actual results could differ materially from any forecast or projection contained in such forward-looking information. Additionally, all net earnings information to be discussed today is for continuing operations and is attributable to the common shareholders of Algonquin. Certain material factors and assumptions were applied in making the forecasts and projections reflected in forward-looking information. Please note and review the related disclaimers located on Slide 2 of our earnings call presentation at the Investor Relations section of our website at algonquinpower.com. Please also refer to our most recent MD&A on SEDAR+ and EDGAR and available on our website for important additional information on these items. On the call this morning, Rod will provide a business update, and Rob will follow through with details of our financial results. We'll then open the line for questions. [Operator Instructions]. And with that, I'll turn things over to Rod.

Thanks, Brian, and good morning, everyone. Thanks for joining us. 2025 was a turning point for Algonquin. We delivered strong results, improved earned returns, made substantial operational and regulatory progress and meaningfully strengthened our balance sheet. And those results reflect something broader. Algonquin is a different company today than it was a year ago. We are more focused, more disciplined and to each other and to our stakeholders more accountable. We have sharpened our strategy, assembled an experienced leadership team and laid the foundation for a sustained performance culture. In short, we're advancing toward our goal of becoming a premium pure-play regulated utility. Turning to Slide 5. I'll begin my remarks today by walking through our accomplishments in 2025. We delivered full year net earnings per share of $0.27 and adjusted net EPS of $0.34, which exceeded the top end of our guidance range by $0.02. These results demonstrate that our Back-to-Basics strategy is driving measurable improvements in our underlying fundamentals. And as we've discussed before, becoming a premium utility starts with getting the fundamentals right. Since I joined Algonquin, we focused on, first, improving operational discipline to improve customer outcomes and driving efficiencies by bending our cost curve; and second, strengthening regulatory strategy execution through more proactive stakeholder engagement, all to drive more constructive and timely outcomes. Our 2025 results provide recent evidence of that focus. We reduced operating expense as a percentage of gross revenue by -- from approximately 38% in 2024 to roughly 36% in 2025. We achieved constructive regulatory outcomes across a range of proceedings, and we improved our earned ROE from 5.5% in 2024 to approximately 6.8% in 2025. We also made progress this year in strengthening our balance sheet. We used net proceeds from the sale of our renewable business, excluding our hydro assets…

Thanks, Rod, and good morning, everyone. I've been immersed in my first 2 months at Algonquin, and I'm excited to partner with Rod and the leadership team here to build a premium utility through disciplined execution across the organization. With that, I'll turn to our results on Slide 11. We reported full year GAAP net earnings of $208 million compared to $54.8 million in 2024. Full year adjusted net earnings were $258.8 million, up approximately 17% from $221.6 million in 2024. For the fourth quarter, GAAP net earnings were $29.4 million compared to a net loss of $110.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2024. These strong results reflect the progress we are making to deliver steady, predictable earnings. I'll now discuss the drivers behind this improvement as I walk through our adjusted net EPS results. On Slide 12, we provide our fourth quarter 2025 adjusted net EPS walk to common shareholders. Fourth quarter adjusted net EPS to common was $0.06 per share, which was flat year-over-year. On the top line, the increase in adjusted net earnings was primarily driven by $10.3 million from the implementation of new utility rates at BELCO Electric, Midstates Gas, Peach State Gas, Missouri Water, New York Water and several of our Arizona water and sewer systems. Moving to interest expense. We realized a $17.9 million reduction, reflecting the paydown of debt using proceeds from both the sale of the renewable energy business and the sale of our ownership stake in Atlantica. This has been a consistent positive driver throughout the year and a direct result of our balance sheet strengthening efforts. Operating expenses and depreciation were modestly higher by $6.1 million, driven by fourth quarter costs associated with the targeted relief initiative for customers agreed to as part of our Empire Electric Missouri settlement.…

Before we open the line for questions, I want to step back and leave you with a few thoughts on where we are and where we're headed now that literally, this is my 1 year in the job. It was March 7 last year when I began my tenure. When I joined Algonquin just over a year ago, I said that this company had the very real potential to become a premium pure-play utility. In 2025, we began turning that potential into results. Our leadership team is now in place, and we're delivering results through our Back-to-Basics strategy. We're focused on driving operational execution and constructive regulatory engagement to drive an attractive near-term financial profile as we close the gap to our authorized return. We have a strengthened balance sheet with a credit rating profile that provides low-cost access to capital and no expected equity needs through 2027. We're executing a customer-focused capital plan of approximately $3.2 billion, focused on organic investment to enhance safety, reliability and improve customer service. As we continue to reearn our right to grow, we're keeping our eye on additional opportunities in our service territories. We believe this adds up to a clear and compelling investment thesis as we position Algonquin as a singularly focused pure-play regulated utility operating across high-quality, increasingly constructive jurisdictions. As you've heard me say, every component of our vision, mission and strategy is being developed with achieving sustainable premium attributes at the forefront. We're staying focused on capturing the opportunity ahead and executing the mission we've laid out. I couldn't be more excited about what's in store for 2026 and beyond. Thanks for your time this morning. And with that, I'll turn it back to the operator for questions.

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Baltej Sidhu with National Bank of Canada.

Just on the revised 2027 guidance, can you share details or the largest drivers that underpin the new assumptions towards the mid- to high 20s effective tax rate versus the prior assumptions?

Yes. Thanks, Baltej. It's Rob Stefani. Look, throughout my onboarding, we reviewed the financial projections. And during that assessment, the forward view of the effective tax rate moved from the low to mid-20s to the mid- to high 20s that we currently expect. That resulted in just over about $0.03 per share of EPS deduction. We're actively looking at tax optimization strategies, but those appear to really move past 2027, if pursued. As a result and in the interest of transparency, we revised that 2027 range down. Anything else I can add there for you?

No, I think I got it there. And then just a follow-up there for you, Rob, just more from a strategic overview. You've been in the seat now for 60 days. Could you share your thoughts on the largest levers that the business can pull in the near term and also potential procedures or processes that Algonquin doesn't have yet that you've seen elsewhere in your prior experience?

Yes. I mean, look, I think the strategy that Rod and the team have put together is strong, and that's really hinges around the rate case cadence and rate case strategy and engaging across our jurisdictions, bringing leaders in from very well-recognized utilities to enhance the operating platform like Amy and Pete and Kristin. And so as I think about kind of levers we can pull as a management team with a lot of experience at premium utilities, I think that's really at the forefront. And then the balance sheet, we've got over $1.4 billion of liquidity. We've got a strong investment-grade balance sheet, and that provides us the flexibility to pursue organic growth as well as assess other opportunities. So as you think about levers, the leadership team, that refocus on regulatory engagement and then the sound financial balance sheet provides us a lot of flexibility.

Our next question comes from the line of Elias Jossen with JPMorgan.

I wanted to start on the additional opportunities you mentioned at the end of your remarks. Can you just frame what types of opportunities you see in the market and maybe touch on whether those would include some portfolio optimization opportunities as well?

I'll start and certainly let Rob weigh in with his early observations. The opportunities from my vantage point aren't new. Our growth story starts with organic growth within our existing jurisdictions where we have both the opportunity, and I would dare say the mandate to create different customer outcomes in the areas we serve. And the underpinning of our rate base growth is predominantly organic. What we've said in prior -- the last prior couple of quarters, particularly since last May, is that the portfolio, we've done the work on our existing portfolio with all the potential scenarios around puts and takes. And what you've heard from us is that we remain opportunistic. There was nothing so compelling given the screening criteria for M&A that keeps us disciplined on our core business. There was nothing immediately so compelling that it required us to move now. But to the extent that there are opportunities for us to take a look at potential moves within the portfolio, we're poised to do that. There was a capital recycling opportunity. Again, we have a point of view around things that might be in the dashboard. But our focus still -- and remember, it's only -- from my vantage point, at least, it's only 12 months in. We're under the hood right now improving the existing portfolio with an eye towards creating sustainable returns from that base. And we'll continue to be eyes wide open on additional moves, but they got to be accretive. They got to be transactional to be able to be executed, and they can't so unduly distract us from the commitments we've made. So opportunistic is the word.

Great. And then we've seen some initial rate case and broader operational execution across the business. But maybe thinking a bit further out, how should we think about this transitioning from an ROE improvement vision to one that is more growth driven by solid rate base trends and growth across the business?

Yes. That's the right question and the one that's occupying us. It starts first on our end by improving the outcomes for customers and our own operational discipline, earning the right to make requests for the -- and I use the term gently, the tweaks and the regulatory mechanisms in our respective states. I'll give you a prime example. I'll use the state of Missouri because I remember off the top of my head, I think it's Senate Bill 4 that created forward test year formula rate plans for water and gas, I believe, and it did not include electric. But given what we know to be our capital focus to create customer outcomes and support economic development in that Empire region, it would be a helpful component if we didn't have -- if we had the access to forward test years and formula rates in the electric business, right? But those require legislative adjustments. And I could see where we would align -- we can align with our stakeholders there to help support more timely and constructive recovery mechanisms consistent with our customer-centric capital plan. That's just one example of the types of tweaks where we have an opportunity to close the gap and allow returns by coming to the regulator with an all-out effort to lower cost to be focused on affordability, while at the same time, meeting our aligned objectives around improving customer outcomes, supporting economic development and certainly for us, meeting our financial obligations to our owners.

Next question comes from the line of Nelson Ng with RBC Capital Markets.

Rod, congrats on your first anniversary on the job. My first question just relates to CalPeco, the solar project that was canceled or written down. Can you just give a bit of background on that project and like how big it was? Because I think there are several solar assets at CalPeco already, but I just want to kind of understand -- provide a bit of color. And then also, I guess it was also included in adjusted earnings and why it wasn't adjusted out?

Yes. So just regarding the question on the CalPeco solar write-off, that project was in Nevada, was meant to bring power in CalPeco. Just given where the economics of the project were and our assessment of the ability to earn a fair return on it, we decided not to move forward. As far as why it wasn't included in adjustments, I think as a utility with the rate base, the size of ours, obviously, you'll have projects that could potentially be abandoned along the way. And so view that more as something that wouldn't necessarily be classified as one-off. Obviously, you strive to limit those. But in that case, we wanted to reflect it within operating expenses year.

Okay. Great. And then my next question is, I know, Rod, you previously talked about potentially redomiciling. Do you have any updates or early indications on that process? And I was just wondering whether that could potentially impact your effective tax rate.

The short answer is it could. And the other answer is it's ongoing. I won't be in a position to announce anything on the redomicile question other than to say we are advancing our analytics around answering those types of questions to the extent that a redomicile conversation could influence our point of view on our respective tax strategy and the options available to us. And we're taking those types of -- that type of analysis to our Board to answer those very questions. So -- but we don't have announcements to make. I think those are premature, but the work is without question underway.

Next question comes from the line of Robert Hope with Scotiabank.

So I appreciate the incremental color on 2028 CapEx and rate base on the presentation. Can you provide some incremental color on what you think the natural growth rate of your utilities are in a more steady-state environment? The presentation shows 5% to 6% rate base -- 5% to 6% rate base CAGR to '28. But if we actually take a look at '28 with $1.3 billion of CapEx, you're closer to 8% growth on the rate base. Is this what you view to be a more indicative number for the natural growth of the business?

Yes. Thanks, Robert. I think towards the end of that forecast, I think you have to remember, we've got the ARIS generation project as well as our investment in the transmission and SPP, which we're very excited about. So it's back-end weighted due to that SPP transmission project and really more of the spend on ARIS. So that's what really drives the outsized growth towards the end of that forecast period.

All right. That's helpful. And then as a follow-up there, maybe just in terms of the SPP transmission, can you provide us an update on where you are with the number of those projects? And would it be fair to assume that, that does hit '28, but that will be a multiyear project towards the end of the decade?

One, it's a multiyear project for sure, where the lion's share of the capital really shows up in the back end of the decade. We're going through various regulatory processes associated with SPP and our counterparties in both the transmission and the generation projects internally. We're tracking along with our regulator expectations around how that capital deployment is actually going to flow through rates, and we're shaping our regulatory strategy around aligning recovery with our capital deployment expectations. And so it's -- as you know already from your history, you know how this works. Given the size of the capital programs, particularly as it relates to the history of Algonquin and the Empire District, it's one of the largest projects we've ever had in the company's history. It's critical for us that we align our CapEx programs with constructive regulatory recovery. And to their credit, the respective states are aware of the significance of us getting that piece right, and we're bringing them along with us on the journey.

Next question comes from the line of Ben Pham with BMO.

You mentioned the progress on operational efficiencies for '25. You mentioned the uptick in ROE. Can you comment then maybe specific for Rod, as you think about the last 12 months, you kind of tracking to what you're expecting coming in? Was there anything you learned along the way in the last 12 months, surprises, areas you can tweak a bit more. So a progress update on 2025 versus when you first started?

Yes. It's a great question, and I've been in constant both assessment and reflection mode. I think the extent to which I had a point of view around bidding the cost curve and the need for us to rightsize the service company in support of our utility objectives, that's really been reinforced the deeper I've gotten into the organization. The need for consistent operational both cadence and standards for customer outcomes for safety and operational performance, the need is great. To the extent that you have operating entities from, let's say, Bermuda out from an eastward perspective to CalPeco to the West, you have different operating cultures and experiences. The 13 U.S. states in 4 different countries each have different regulatory cultures. But from our vantage point, the need to have a singular focus on safety, customer outcomes and operational excellence required more engagement from leadership, which is why I knew that I needed to be surrounded by folks who understood what excellence looks like so that we could role model the very behavior we're seeking to now reinforce 2, 3, 4 levels down in the company. And the other piece of the puzzle is the stakeholder engagement where I'm bringing and we are intentionally bringing our stakeholders along with us on the journey. It's really important for us as leaders to show up with our regulators who we're asking to support us on the journey to create different customer outcomes. And that means putting capital to work. More importantly, all of this stuff is happening in an environment where affordability is an absolute headwind regardless of what the actual price to value might actually be. The narrative around affordability is influencing our regulators' receptivity to additional rate recovery. But they recognize being intellectually honest, that customers can't receive the benefits of economic development and lower cost without efficient investment and timely recovery. And so I'm not surprised by what I've seen because I've been in the industry long enough to where I'm recognizing pattern recognition, but in every different jurisdiction, context matters and it influences how our employees, our regulators, the communities and the customers that we serve, how they receive our value proposition. My objective then is to provide you as much transparency as our investors in the path ahead and create a predictable pathway of meeting your expectations so that you take the journey with us. But I've been pleasantly surprised by the receptivity of our employees to this pure-play strategy and the standard. And I'm really pleased that I've been able to convince my colleagues around the table to join me on this journey of realizing what I still very much believe is a fantastic future for Algon.

Okay. That's great. And then maybe to turn to some of the other questions highlighted, the 2028 CapEx, the rate base you have there. You now have CFO, Rob in the seat, he's looked at the numbers in more detail. Are you in a position near term or next couple of months to think about your guidance beyond '27 with these additional details? Or is even through 2030 guidance, that may be unrealistic just given that you're still walking and running?

Yes. I think you better believe we're looking at that. But to the extent that I would give guidance beyond, say, a growth CAGR for earnings, I'm grappling with what level of certainty do I have given the multitude of states, regulatory constructs, investment opportunities, portfolio scenarios on top of the earlier questions that were being asked and continue to be asked around domicile. I don't know that in the next couple of months, I'm going to give you -- be in a position where I'm comfortable giving you a longer view. But from the moment we came on board and now that we've settled and Rob has settled in -- settling in as CFO, we're putting the meat on the bones around the longer view and zeroing in on reducing that cone of uncertainty as we and the Board begin making some decisions around the answer to some of those broader questions, whether it's portfolio, domicile, all of those things influence the tax assumptions for '27. But it's a work in progress, and I don't -- I won't create an expectation of some big reveal, but I need you to know that we're under the hood constantly assessing how far out can we have clarity so that we can project transparently that clarity to you. But we are definitely working on that.

Next question comes from the line of Mark Jarvi with CIBC Capital Markets.

Just in terms of the CapEx ramping through '27 and again through '28, Rob, you've articulated that you don't want the company really spending capital unless you can earn a fair return on it. So just as you stand here today, the confidence that the regulatory improvement there, confidence in recovering that invested capital to get across '27, '28. And just is that sort of the signal then the higher CapEx through '28, just that increasing confidence that the earned ROE continues to track higher beyond 2027?

The short answer is yes. And again, for me, looking at -- and certainly, Rob, as we're shaping out the capital plan and matching the earnings, we're also doing the dance around timing. And what I am trying to get my comfort around, and this kind of goes to my relative visibility into a 5-year plus kind of look is how does the timing play out? I know that I got some big chunky investments in transmission and generation in the next couple or 3 years. Missouri, I got a 2-year stay-out period, right, where I'll be working to feather in the implementation of the rates that we settled on, while at the same time, knowing I got to put capital to work to advance the larger chunkier projects in transmission and generation, all of which are accretive to the value of the firm. But the work is ongoing for me, how do I bend the cost curve in the near term to create and maintain the margins while still feathering in investment and getting support of our regulators to, in some instances, perhaps accelerate existing mechanisms to keep us whole. All of those things are part of managing the business. And as we've alluded to, there are some areas where we just have to put more resources to work to provide the outcomes to customers to earn the right for those more efficient recovery mechanisms. But Rob and I are -- along with the executive team, know that our responsibility to you is to map out how we close the gap between our allowed returns and earned. And we are dead set on remaining focused on achieving those outcomes as quickly and as efficiently as we can. I need you to know that that's not -- that's never lost on us.

That makes sense. And then just if I hear you right, would we maybe sort of higher sort of variance potentially on CapEx in '27, '28 just because you're still working through this process? And then I guess, Rob, in terms of the comments around 2027, no equity, just the view in terms of how you fund through 2028?

Yes. So we haven't put out guidance on 2028. And I think to Rod's earlier point, I think as you look across the business and anything we could do there, I think it's just premature. But as we look out, as you look at our balance sheet, as you look at bringing in decisions on the regulatory front, we feel confident in that ability to get through 2027 without an equity issuance. I think the capital plan is exciting. It is back-end weighted, but not an insignificant part of that is FERC transmission that would earn a return along the way that's compelling. So as we think about those kind of opportunities and closing the gap on ROE, I mean, that's exactly that and getting in on the state side to close the gap on the distribution end. That's what we got to be doing. So I think it's exciting. Those projects, unfortunately, they're towards the back end. But as Rod highlighted, they do continue past 2028. So something to kind of look forward to in the forecast, but also beyond that.

Next question comes from the line of John Mould with TD Cowen.

I'd just like to start with the Missouri rate case and the customer metrics that you need to have in place there for 3 consecutive months. Could you maybe just -- and I appreciate those are metrics that were included in the settlement that you're comfortable with. I'm just wondering if you could give us some color on your progress on those customer metrics and how you're thinking about kind of time to hitting that 3 consecutive month window?

Yes. And I have Amy, our Chief Customer Officer, here. I'll start the question, and I'll look for some body language from Amy to tell me if I'm off on it. And I've shared before that these -- the customer metrics were all around items like accuracy, timeliness of billing, which sounds simple, but for us, represented the outcomes of a series of end-to-end processes that presented opportunities for improvement. We did not believe those metrics, all of which would be the types of things that any utility would view as reasonable. We believe we have satisfied those metrics, but we are in the process of validating with the commission the sustainability of -- the achievement and sustainability of those metrics so that we could then satisfy for the commission that we met the conditions precedent for rate implementation. And Amy and her team have literally been working 24/7 to ensure not only the achievement, but the durability of the fixes that created the friction in Missouri. And our expectation is that we're going to answer the bell for the regulator, but also for our customers to meet that -- to meet those time lines and outcomes. So we're on track, but we're in the process of validating that with the commission, and that is a condition precedent of rate implementation per for this element. But think about timeliness, think about accuracy of bills and the durability of the system upgrades that we -- and tweaks that we have made along the way.

Okay. And then just maybe a quick one on the hydro. How should we think about where that sits in the pecking order of potential recycling opportunities? It doesn't impede your pure-play positioning and wouldn't displace an equity need over the next couple of years because you don't need to come to market, but it does represent your only non-reg assets. So how should we think of that relative to the rest of the portfolio and in terms of what you -- the kind of interest or conversations you've had in the market since you identified that?

Yes. And I'm -- it's not going to be exciting to hear because there isn't one thing different than what you've heard before. And I don't -- well, actually, I do want to sound like a broken record because I want us to be consistent, is no longer what we consider to be material, right, just given where the asset sits within the existing portfolio. We are focused on the pure play. And certainly, our openness and willingness to transact with the hydro asset hasn't changed. We've made the point that it's not a fire sale circumstance where we're looking to jettison it at any cost. And to the extent that we have been -- have received or are in any stage of conversation with counterparties, we wouldn't be commenting on it unless we thought we were at a point where we'd have something to transact on. That being said, it is still very much an asset that we believe is -- would better serve us outside the portfolio, assuming we had reasonable terms. And that's all we're doing is pursuing reasonable terms, and we're sure not going to be distracted by any process that isn't from our vantage point, isn't creating some level of value on our end. So if Rob has anything to add there by all means, but it's on the dashboard, and we go through the normal processes around considering inbound from interested parties. But again, this will not be a fire sale.

[Operator Instructions] We'll take our last question from Elias Jossen with JPMorgan.

One more quick one. Can you just discuss your overall view on the California regulatory backdrop, maybe thinking about wildfire risk at CalPeco and whether the team would consider contributing to a wildfire fund there?

How much time you got?

I got all morning.

No, it's -- listen, it's an ongoing effort for us as we're not at the same scale as some of my larger colleagues that operate in the state. And that dynamic influences how I think about the backdrop around wildfire. We're going through a process right now to get our wildfire mitigation plans approved. And it is a complex landscape that we are navigating. We expect to navigate it as is our charge and reduce the risk, both financially, operationally and otherwise to wildfires while managing certainly the cost, but from my vantage point, the recovery mechanisms that -- and access to insurance that reduces risk on our end. And I am spending a fair amount of time as is my team, both contributing to and tracking that process. But -- and it is a full-time endeavor. I will tell you. We are spending a fair amount of time and resources keeping up, but I am duty bound to reduce the risk of operating in California, and we're engaged with our stakeholders in Washington, D.C., and the state of California from the governor's office to our regulators and other counterparties. We're fully engaged just given the complexity of managing risk there.

There are no further questions at this time. I will turn the call to Mr. Rod West.

All right. Just a general thanks for your continued interest and our commitment to be transparent with you has been the undergirding of our disclosures today. And again, thanks for supporting our path to premium. Have a great day.

This concludes today's conference call. You may now disconnect.